The Cambridge History of Greek and Roman Political Thought Edited by: Christopher Rowe, professor of Greek, University or Durham & Malcolm Schofield, professor of ancient philosophy, University of Cambridge. -Cambridge University Press 2005-
1. THE CAMBRIDGE HISTORY OF Greek and Roman Political Thought
Cambridge Histories Online Cambridge University Press, 2008
2. Cambridge Histories Online Cambridge University Press,
2008
3. THE CAMBRIDGE HISTORY OF Greek and Roman Political Thought
Edited by CHRISTOPHER ROWE PROFESSOR OF GREEK UNIVERSITY OF DURHAM
and MALCOLM SCHOFIELD PROFESSOR OF ANCIENT PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF
CAMBRIDGE in association with SIMON HARRISON FELLOW OF ST JOHN'S
COLLEGE CAMBRIDGE and MELISSA LANE UNIVERSITY LECTURER IN HISTORY
UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS Cambridge
Histories Online Cambridge University Press, 2008
4. CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS Cambridge, New York, Melbourne,
Madrid, Cape Town, Singapore, Sao Paulo Cambridge University Press
The Edinburgh Building,Cambridge cm 8RU, UK Published in the United
States of America by Cambridge University Press, New York
www.cambridge.org Information on this
title:www.cambridge.org/978o52i6i669O Cambridge University Press
200 5 This publication is in copyright. Subject to statutory
exception and to the provisions of relevant collective licensing
agreements, no reproduction of any part may take place without the
written permission of Cambridge University Press. First published
2000 First paperback edition 2005 Third printing 2007 Printed in
the United Kingdom at the University Press, Cambridge A catalogue
record for this book is availablefromthe British Library Library
ofCongress cataloguing in publication data The Cambridge History
ofGreek and Roman Political Thought / edited by Christopher Rowe
and Malcolm Schofield. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references
and index. 1. Political science - Greece - History. 2. Political
science Rome-History. 1. Rowe, Christopher. 11. Schofield,Malcolm.
JC51.C294 2000 32oo938-dc2i 99-28162 CIP iSBN-13 978-0-521-48136-6
hardback iSBN-13 978-0-521-61669-0 paperback Cambridge University
Press has no responsibility for the persistence or accuracy of URXs
for external or third-party internet websites referred to in this
publication, and does not guarantee that any content on such
websites is, or will remain, accurate or appropriate. Cambridge
Histories Online Cambridge University Press, 2008
5. Contents List ofmaps xiii Preface xv Abbreviations xvi-xx
Introduction by C H R I S T O P H E R ROWE, Professor ofGreek,
University of Durham 1 PART I ARCHAIC A N D CLASSICAL GREECE 1
Greek political thought: the historical context 11 y PAU L CA RTLE
DG E, Reader in Greek History, University ofCambridge 1.
Terminology 11 2. The'political' IZ 3.Thepolis 4. Political theory
IJ 20 THE BEGINNINGS 2 Poets, lawgivers, and the beginnings of
political reflection in archaic Greece by K U R T A. RAAFLAUB,
Co-Director, Center for Hellenic Studies, Washington D.C. 1. Polis
and political thinking 2. Archaic poetry and political thinking 3.
Homer 4. Hesiod 5. Tyrtaeus to Theognis 6. Solon 7. Archaic
lawgivers 8. Early philosophers [V] Cambridge Histories Online
Cambridge University Press, 2008 23 26 27 34 37 39 42 48
6. vi Contents 9. Near Eastern antecedents and influences 50
10. Conclusion: the beginnings of political thinking in Archaic
Greece 57 3 Greek drama and political theory 60 ^ySiMON GOLDHILL,
Reader in Greek Literature and Culture, University ofCambridge 1.
The institution of the theatre 61 2. Political themes of tragic
writing 65 3. The Oresteia 74 4. Antigone 81 5. Comedy 84 6.
Conclusion 87 4 Herodotus, Thucydides and the sophists by RICHARD
WINTON, Lecturer in Ancient History, University ofNottingham 1. The
sophists 2. Herodotus 3. Thucydides 89 89 101 111 5-Democritus byC.
C. W. TAYLCm,ReaderinAncientPhilosophy, University ofOxford 122 6 -
T h e orators fryJOSiAH O B E R , David Magie Professor of Ancient
History, Princeton University 1. Introduction 2. Historical
background and institutional context 3. The corpus of orations by
Athenian orators 4. Popular wisdom and the problem of erroneous
public decisions 130 Xenophon and Isocrates 130 131 134 iJ5 142 by
V. J. G R A Y , Professor ofClassics and Ancient History,
University of Auckland 1. 2. 3. 4. Democracy Rulership Sparta
Panhellenism Cambridge Histories Online Cambridge University Press,
2008 H3 146 151 154
7. Contents SOCRATES A N D PLATO 8 Socrates and Plato: an
introduction by MELISSA LANE, University Lecturerin History,
University ofCambridge 1. Approaches to Platonic interpretation 2.
The chronology of Plato's dialogues 3. The Socratic problem
revisited 4. The death of Socrates 155 155 157 160 162 9 Socrates
164 by TERRY PEHHER,ProfessorofPhilosophy, University ofWisconsin,
Madison 1. The discontinuity between 'Socratic' intellectualism and
'mature Platonic' irrationalism about human behaviour 165 2. Some
continuities between 'Socratic' and 'mature Platonic' thought: (i)
the centrality of the question of the teaching of virtue, and (ii)
the sciences and idealization 171 3. A further continuity between
the 'Socratic' dialogues and the middle and late dialogues: (iii)
the sciences and the good 174 4. Socrates' response to the
democratic political theory of the teaching of virtue which
Protagoras propounds in the Protagoras 179 5. The political
philosophy of Phto's Apology and Crito and another continuity
between Socrates and the mature Plato: (iv) the attitude towards
practical politics 182 6. Conclusion 189 10 Approaching the
Republic by MALCOLM SCHOFIELD, Professor ofAncient Philosophy,
University ofCambridge 1. Introduction 2. Gorgias and Menexenus 3.
Republic: a sketch 4. The problem 5. The response: (i) a first
model 6. The response: (ii) a causal story 7. The digression: (i)
unity and the good city 8. The digression: (ii) philosopher rulers
9. The response: (iii) justice and the city within Cambridge
Histories Online Cambridge University Press, 2008 190 190 192 199
203 207 213 217 224 228
8. viii Contents 11 The Politicus and other dialogues 233 by C
H R I S T O P H E R ROWE 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. The definition of the
'statesman' in the Politicus The myth of the Politicus and other
political myths King or law? The statesman as director and weaver
The Politicus, the Timaeus-Critias, and the Laws 234 239 244 251
254 12 The Laws by ANDRE LAKS, Professor of'Ancient Philosophy,
University ofLille 111 1. A singular work 2. The structure and
content of the Laws 3. Three models for interpreting the Laws:
completion, revision, implementation 4. Man and god: the
anthropology of the Laws 5. Political institutions 6. The forms of
political speech: what is a preamble? 7. Conclusion 258 267 275 2/8
285 291 13 Plato and practical politics 293 258 260 fry MALCOLM
SCHOFIELD 14 Cleitophon and Minos 3 03 by CHRISTOPHER ROWE
ARISTOTLE 15 Aristotle: an introduction 310 fry MALCOLM SCHOFIELD
1. Politics, the legislator, and the structure of the Politics 2.
Sitz im Leben 3. Aristotle's analytical models 16 Naturalism fry F
R E D D. M I L L E R , 1. 2. 3. 4. 310 315 318 321
JR,Professorof'Philosophy, Bowling Green State University 'Nature'
in Aristotle's natural philosophy The naturalness of the polis The
naturalness of the household Nature and education Cambridge
Histories Online Cambridge University Press, 2008 322 325 332
338
9. Contents ix 17 Justice and the polis 344 by JEAN ROBERTS,
Professor ofPhilosophy, University ofWashington 1. Natural and
conventional justice 345 2. Justice as a virtue of individuals 350
3. Individuals as citizens 353 4. Just individuals and just
citizens 355 5. Justice and the distribution of power in the city
360 18 Aristotel ian constitutions 3 66 ^CHRISTOPHER ROWE 1.
Introduction: the nature of the Politics 2. Aristotle and Plato 3.
Kingship, aristocracy and polity 4. Mixed and 'deviant'
constitutions 5. 'Polity' 6. The absolutely best constitution
7.-The ideal and the actual 19 The Peripatos after Aristotle 366
368 3/1 3J8 384 386 3 #7 3^0 by CHRISTOPHER ROWE 1. The fate of
Aristotle's writings 2. Aristotle's successors in the Peripatos 390
391 PART II T H E H E L L E N I S T I C A N D ROMAN W O R L D S 20
Introduction: the Hellenistic and Roman periods 401 by P E T E R G
ARNSEY, Professor ofthe History ofClassical Antiquity, University
ofCambridge 21 T h e Cynics iyJOHN M O L E S , Professor
ofClassics, University of Durham 1. The problem of evidence 2.
Reconstructing Cynicism 3. The Cynics and politics 4. Significance
and influence 415 417 423 432 22 Epicurean and Stoic political t h
o u g h t 435 415 6yMALCOLM SCHOFIELD 1. Introduction 2.
Epicureanism Cambridge Histories Online Cambridge University Press,
2008 435 437
10. x Contents 3. Zend's Republic 4. Later Hellenistic Stoicism
5. Roman epilogue 443 446 453 23 Kings and constitutions:
Hellenistic theories 457 by DAVID E. HAHM, Professor ofClassics,
Ohio State University 1. Kingship theories 458 2. Constitutional
theory 464 24-Cicero 477 byYL. M. ATKINS, lecturer in Theology,
Trinity and All Saints College, University ofLeeds 1. Introduction
477 2. The historical background 4/8 3. The aristocratic code 481
4. Cicero's early career 483 5. The writings of the fifties 487 6.
The civil war and its aftermath 502 7. Philosophy for Romans $03 8.
Conclusion 514 25 Reflections of Roman political thought in Latin
historical writing 517 by THOMAS WIEDEMAHN,Professorof Latin,
University of Nottingham 26- Seneca and Pliny 532 byMiRiAM G R I F
F I N , Fellow and Tutor ofSomerville College, Oxford 1. De
dementia 535 2. Seneca's eulogies and Pliny's Panegyricus 543 3. De
Beneficiis 4. Pliny's correspondence 5. Seneca on public versus
private life 6. Conclusion 27 Platonism and Pythagoreanism in the
early empire iyBRUNO CENTRONE,.Pro/m0rofClassics, University of
Perugia 1. Preliminary considerations 2. Philo of Alexandria 3.
Pseudo-Pythagorean literature Cambridge Histories Online Cambridge
University Press, 2008 545 55i 555 558 559 559 561 567
11. Contents 4. Plutarch 5. Conclusions xi 575 5 S3 28 Josephus
by T E S S A RAJAK, Readerin Ancient History, University ofReading
1. The place of political thought in Josephus' writings 2.
Greek-Jewish thought 3. Leading ideas in Josephus 29 Stoic writers
of the imperial era 585 586 58J 597 6y C H R I S T O P H E R GILL,
Professor ofClassical Thought, 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. University ofExeter
Introduction Musonius Rufus Dio Epictetus Marcus ;lius 30 T h e
jurists 59-/ 601 603 6oy 611 616 by D A V I D J O H N S T O N ,
formerly Regius Professor of'Civil Law, University ofCambridge 1.
2. 3. 4. Introduction General theory of law Public law and private
law Conclusions 31 Christianity 616 618 625 632 635 by F R A N C E
S Y O U N G , # . G.Wood Professor of Theology, University of
Birmingham 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. A political movement? Political attitudes
in the New Testament Developments under persecution The response to
Constantine The separation of spheres Epilogue 635 637 640 650 657
661 by MALCOLM SCHOFIELD 1. Julian and Themistius 2. Augustine 3.
Conclusion Cambridge Histories Online Cambridge University Press,
2008 661 665 671
12. xii Contents Bibliographies I Archaic and Classical Greece
1. The beginnings (Introduction and chs. 1-7) z. Socrates, Plato
and Aristotle (chs. 8-19) II The Hellenistic and Roman Worlds (chs.
20-31 and Epilogue) 6/2 698 Index 729 Cambridge Histories Online
Cambridge University Press, 2008 709
13. Maps 1. Greece in the fifth century BC 2. The Roman
empire,45 BC-AD 69 pages 8-9 398-9 [xiii] Cambridge Histories
Online Cambridge University Press, 2008
14. Cambridge Histories Online Cambridge University Press,
2008
15. Preface The Editors take this opportunity of thanking all
who have helped to make this volume a reality. First among them are
the contributing authors, who mostly delivered copy in good order
on time - and where not, without too great a delay. Many gave up
the time to discuss each others' drafts and to attempt to agree a
common house style at an enjoyable workshop held in Corpus Christi
College, Oxford, in September 1995. Apologies are accordingly due
for editorial delays in preparing their work for the printer.
Secondly, with the contributors we salute our successive Associate
Editors, Melissa Lane and Simon Harrison, whose energy, enthusiasm
and efficiency have been indispensable to the success of the
project. Finally, we express our gratitude to all at the Press who
have been involved in the production of the book, and above all to
Pauline Hire, who has simultaneously nagged and encouraged us until
we finished. CJR MS January 1999 [xv] Cambridge Histories Online
Cambridge University Press, 2008
16. Abbreviations Acronyms are used for modern series or
collections of texts as follows: C CCSL C1L CPF CSEL D DK GCS GP IG
KRS Migne, PG/PL ML NPNF P SC SVF W Code [of Justinian] = Corpus
iuris civilis, vol. n (Berlin) Corpus Christianorum, Series Latina
(Turnholt) Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum Corpus dei Papyri
Filosofici Greci e Latini: Testi e lessico nei papiri di cultura
greca e latina, Accademica Toscana di Scienze e Lettere "La
Colombaria" (Florence 1989- ) Corpus Scriptorum Eccksiasticorum
Latinorum (Vienna and Leipzig) Digest = Corpus iuris civilis, vol.
1 (Berlin) H. Diels and W. Kranz, Die Fragments der Vorsokratiker,
2 vols., sixth edition (Berlin 1951-2) Diegriechischen christlichen
Schriftsteller, Berlin Academy (Berlin) B. Gentili and C. Prato,
Poetarum elegiacorum testimonia etfragmenta, vol. 1 (Leipzig 1988)
Inscriptions Graecae (Berlin 1873- ) G. S. Kirk,J. E. Raven,and M.
SchoRed,The Presocratic Philosophers (Cambridge, 2nd edn. 1983)
J.-P. Migne,Patrologiae cursus completus, Series Graecus/Latinus
(Paris) R. Meiggs and D. Lewis,vl Selection ofGreek Historical
Inscriptions to the End ofthe Fifth Century Bc(Oxford, rev. edn.
1988) Nicene andPost-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids MI 1975- ) D. L.
Page, Poetae Melici Graeci (Oxford 1962) Sources Chretiennes
(Paris) J. von Arnim, Stoicorum VeterumFragmenta,^ vols. (Leipzig
1903-5) M. L. West, Iambi et elegi Graeci ante Alexandrum cantati,
2 vols. (Oxford, 2nd edn. 1992) Abbreviations of the names and
writings of Greek and Latin authors generally follow standard
forms, usually but not invariably those adopted in A Greek-English
Lexicon, by H. G. Liddell and R. Scott, revised by H. S. Jones
(Oxford, 9th edn. 1925-40) [= LSJ] and in A Latin Dictionary, by C.
T. Lewis and C. Short (Oxford 1879). Many of those used in this
book are immediately intelligible from the context. Others which
may not be are: Aelian Ver.Hist. Arist. An.Pr. Aelian Aristotle
VeraHistoria Analytica Priora [xvi] Cambridge Histories Online
Cambridge University Press, 2008
17. Abbreviations Ath. Pol. Cael. Cat. deAn. EE EN GA GC HA
Metaph. Meteor. MM PA Phys. Pol. Rhet. Somn. Top. Athen. Deipn.
August. CD C. Iul. Retract. Caesar Civ. Cic.Acad. ad Brut. Agr.
Amic. Att. Balb. Brut. Clu. de Orat. Div. Fam. Fin. Inv. Leg. Lig.
Man. ND Athenaeus Augusti ne Julius Caesar Cicero XVll Athenaim
Politeia de Caelo Categories deAnima Eudemian Ethics Nicomachean
Ethics de Generatione Animalium de Generatione et Corruptione
Historia Animalium Metaphysics Meteorology Magna Moralia de
Partibus Animalium Physics Politics Rhetoric de Somno Topics
Deipnosophistae de Civitate Dei (City ofGod) Contra Julianum
Retractationes de Bello Civili Academica Letters to Brutus
deLegeAgraria deAmicitia Letters to Atticus pro Balbo Brutus pro
Cluentio de Oratore de Divinatione Letters to his friends de
Finibus de Inventione de Legibus pro Ligario pro Lege Manilia de
Natura Deorum Off de Officiis Orat. Phil. Plane. QSr. Rab.Post.
Orator Philippics pro Plancio Letters to his brother Quintus pro
Rabirio Postumo Cambridge Histories Online Cambridge University
Press, 2008
18. Abbreviations xviii Rep. Sest. Tim. Tusc. Clem. Strom.
D.Chr. Or. D.L. Dem. Demetr. de Eloc. Epict. Diss. Ench. Epicurus
KD Sent.Vat. Epiphan. Adv.Haer. Eusebius Hist.Ecd. Fronto ad
M.Caes. Hdt. [Heraclit.]/;. Iambi. VPyth. lsid.Etym. Isoc. Julian
Ep.Them. Ep. Theodor. Frag. Ep. Or. Lact. Inst. Liv. MacrobiusSat.
Somn. Neposj4tt. Olymp. Prol. Orig. Cels. Ph. Abr. Cher. Deter.
Fug. Immut. Jos. leg. Legat. Migr. Mos. Opif. Poster. Quaest.Ex.
Quaest.Gen. Clement Dio Chrysostom Diogenes Laertius Demosthenes
Demetrius Epictetus Epicurus Epiphanius Eusebius Fronto Herodotus
Iamblichus Isidore Isocrates Julian Lactantius Livy Macrobius Nepos
Olympiodorus Origen Philo deRePublica pro Sestio Timaeus Tusculan
Disputations Stromateis (Miscellanies) Orationes de Elocutione (On
Style) Dissertationes (Discourses) Encheiridion (Handbook) Kuriai
Doxai (Key Doctrines) Vatican Sentences Against Heresies Church
History Letters to the Emperor Marcus Letters ascribed to
Heraclitus On the Pythagorean Life Etymologiae Letter to Themistius
Letter to Theodorus Fragments ofhis Correspondence Orations Divine
Institutes Saturnalia The Dream ofScipio Life ofAtticus Prolegomena
to Platonic Philosophy Against Celsus On Abraham On the Cherubim
Quod detenus potion insidiari soleat de Fuga et Inventione Quod
Deus est immutabilis On Joseph Legum allegoriae Legatio ad Gaium de
Migratione Abrahamae On the Life of Moses de Opificio Mundi de
Posteritate Caini Questions and Solutions on Exodus Questions and
Solutions on Genesis Cambridge Histories Online Cambridge
University Press, 2008
19. Abbreviations Somn. Spec. Virt. Phld. indAcad. Piet. Stoic.
Phot. Bib!. PlAp. Chrm. Philodemus Photius Plato Cr. Crat. Ep.
Euthd. Euthphr. Gorg. Hi.Mi. La. Lys. Menex. Phd. Phdr. Pit. Prm.
Prot. Rep. Smp. Sph. Tht. Tim. Plb. Pliny Nat. Pliny Ep. Pan. Plu.
ad Princ. Alex. Alex.Fort. Amat. An Recte An Seni Arist. Cat.Mai.
Cic. Col. Comm.Not. de FratAmor. Polybius Pliny the elder Pliny the
younger Plutarch xix deSomniis de Specialibus Legibus On the
Virtues Index ofthe Academy On Piety On the Stoics Bibliotheca
Apology Charmides Crito Cratylus Letters Euthydemus Eidhyphro
Gorgias Hippias Minor Laches Lysias Menexenus Phaedo Phaedrus
Politicus (.Statesman) Pamenides Protagoras Republic Symposium
Sophist Theaetetus Timaeus Natural History Letters Panegyricus To
an uneducated ruler Life of Alexander The luck or virtue of
Alexander Amatorius (Erotikos) An recte dictum sit latenter est
vivendum Should the elderly engage in politics? Life ofAristides
Life ofCato the elder Life ofCicero Against Colotes de Communibus
Notitiis de Fraterno Amore Cambridge Histories Online Cambridge
University Press, 2008
20. Abbreviations XX dels.etOr. de Sera de Urtius On Isis and
Osiris de Sera Numinis Vindicta de Unius in Re Publica Dominatione
de Virtute Morali Life of Demetrius Fragments on pleasure and
illness de VirtMor. Demetr. Fragm. de Libid. etAegr. Lye. Max. cum
Print. Num. Phoc. Praec. Quaest.Conv. Rom. Stoic.Rep. Tranq.Au.
Porph. Abst. Man. Ps.Xen. Ath.Pol. Quint. Inst. Sal. Cat. JuSen.
Suas. Sen. Apoc. Ben. Brev.Vit. Clem. Cons.Marc. ConsLSap. Porphyry
Pseudo-Xenophon Quintilian Sallust Seneca the elder Seneca the
younger Ep. TranqAn. SextusAf PH SHA Stob. Tac. Ann. Hist. Theod.
Cur. Thuc. V. Max. Veil. Sextus Empiricus Scriptores Historiae
Augustae Stobaeus (John of Stobi) Tacitus Theodoret Thucydides
Valerius Maximus Velleius Paterculus Life ofLycurgus Why the
philosopher should especially converse with rulers Life ofNuma Life
ofPhocion Advice on Politics Quaestiones Conviviales Life of
Romulus de Stoicis Repugnantiis de Tranquillitate Animi On
Abstinence To Marcella Constitution of Athens Institutiones
Catiline Bellum Jugurthin um Suasoriae Apocolocyntosis de
Beneficiis de Brevitate Vitae de dementia Consolatio adMarciam de
Constantia Sapientis Letters de Tranquillitate Animi adversus
Mathematicos Outlines ofPyrrhonism Annales Historiae
GraecarumAffectionum Curatio Cambridge Histories Online Cambridge
University Press, 2008
21. Introduction CHRISTOPHER ROWE The purpose of this volume is
to provide a fresh, critical account of Greek and Roman political
thought from its beginnings to the point at which The Cambridge
History of Medieval Political Thought takes up the story, i.e. c.
AD 350. The choice of this date is obviously to some extent
arbitrary: there is no implication that 'Greek and Roman' political
thinking then suddenly stops short, to be replaced by some entirely
new way of thinking about political issues (the 'medieval'). The
latter sections of the volume, and the Epilogue, make clear the
continuities, as well as the discontinuities, in political thought
between the 'ancient' and the 'medieval' periods. Indeed, as the
readers of the present History may discover, it is a moot question
whether the discontinuities here are more significant than, for
example, those between Greek and Roman 'periods', or better 1 the
'Classical' and the 'Hellenistic' (beginning with the death
ofAlexander in the last quarter of the fourth century BC). The
political triumph of Christianity over the Greco-Roman world - when
for the first time an official, monotheistic, religion came to
occupy centre-stage - was certainly momentous. But the changes in
the political environment after the fourth century BC were
themselves massive. What is striking in both cases is the extent to
which political theorizing, if not political thought in the wider
sense, remains comparatively, and remarkably, conservative, working
as much by selection, adaptation and modification as by downright
innovation. The distinction between 'political thought' and
'political theory' is an important one. 'Political thought', the
broader of the two categories, forms the subject of this volume.
'Political theory' represents direct, systematic reflection on
things political; but it is of course possible to think politically
- to reflect on political actions, or institutions - without doing
so systematically or philosophically,2 and such thinking may be 1 2
See below. Philosophical thinking about politics is likely to
include, among other things, some secondorder reflection about what
it is to think politically, and about the nature and possibility of
political knowledge; it will also tend to work at a more general
level than practical thinking that responds to actual situations
and events. [1] Cambridge Histories Online Cambridge University
Press, 2008
22. 2 INTRODUCTION expressed, as it was in the Greco-Roman
context, in literature of all sorts. The writing of political
theory is, in that context, an invention of the fifth century BC
(in its fully-fledged form, an invention of Plato's), but such
writing did not exist in a vacuum; it emerged against the
background of the evolution of complex systems of organization -
beginning with that highly distinctive form ofcommunity, the Greek
polis - which to a greater or lesser extent institutionalized
debate as a means of managing political conflict. The question,
then, which is addressed in the essays that follow is how Greeks
and Romans (prior to AD 350)3 thought, and theorized, about
politics. Other cultures and civilizations are considered only
insofar as they may have contributed to, or - as in the case of
parts of the Jewish intellectual tradition - insofar as they may
have become enmeshed with, the Greek and the Roman, in an
intellectual context that becomes so cosmopolitan as to render
demarcations by national, cultural or linguistic grouping for the
most part unhelpful. It accords with this latter point that the
main division in the volume is not between Greek and Roman at all,
but rather between 'Archaic and Classical' and 'Hellenistic and
Roman'; if 'Archaic and Classical' means primarily Greek, to
separate out the specifically Roman in 'Hellenistic and Roman', at
least at the level of theory, is in part a matter of unravelling a
complex web of appropriation and modification which was itself
sometimes carried out by Greeks within a Roman context. The volume
adopts a predominantly author-based (rather than a topicbased)
approach, for various reasons. We may of course talk loosely of
what 'the Greeks' or 'the Romans' thought on this or that subject
at this or that time, and there is perhaps no harm in our talking
in this fashion, as a way of picking out certain (apparently)
widely-shared ideas or patterns of thinking. Both 'thought' and
'theory', however, require individuals to do the thinking. At the
level of theory, our concern must inevitably be with the specific
theses and arguments advanced by particular individuals, which are
in principle as likely to cut across as to support contemporary
thought and practice; and the reflections of other writers - poets,
historians and others - whom we may class as 'non-philosophical'
(though the boundaries between categories here are notoriously
permeable) are often themselves highly distinctive and individual.
Again, different genres may offer different opportunities for, and
invite different modes of, reflection: the thought of a poet like
Hesiod, or Sophocles, is quite different in quality and feel from
that of a Herodotus or a 3 'Greek and Roman'thus corresponds to
what writers in English have commonly, and parochially, called
'ancient' (as opposed to 'medieval' and 'modern'). Cambridge
Histories Online Cambridge University Press, 2008
23. INTRODUCTION 3 Thucydides. In order to bring out the
individuality of such diverse writers, the editors have encouraged
contributors where possible to include direct quotation from the
original texts. At an early stage of the project, many of the
contributors met to discuss both initial drafts of individual
chapters and general issues of policy. One of the benefits of the
discussion was to initiate conversations between the contributors
which continued until the submission offinalversions of the
chapters, and this process has ensured (so the editors believe) a
degree of coherence in the volume as a whole which might otherwise
have been lacking. From the beginning, however, there have
inevitably been points of mild disagreement, or difference of
emphasis, between editors and contributors, and between the
contributors themselves. The editors have not sought to impose any
final resolution of such disagreements, since any resulting
tensions accurately reflect real, and defensible, differences of
approach to a highly complex subject-matter. One such tension that
may be apparent is between those contributors who prefer a more
historical approach, and those whose interests are primarily
philosophical, and who write with closer attention to the
connections of the ancient material with modern (or perennial)
concerns.4 Clearly different sorts of material may require
different handling; but there must also often be room for
discussion of the same material not only in its original context -
within a particular text, within the oeuvre of the author, or
within the framework of the society and culture in which that
author was writing 5 - but also in the larger context of political
philosophy as a whole, whether that is seen as an attempt at the
impartial resolution of relatively distinct issues, undetermined
(unless perhaps accidentally) by any history, or indeed as itself
an outcome of historical processes. The productive interaction
between historical and philosophical approaches, of whatever sort,
is probably one of the chief distinguishing features of current
work on Greek and Roman thought in general. In principle, then, the
volume aims to be catholic and comprehensive in its coverage,
including differing types of treatment of political thought in 4 5
The volume nevertheless avoids affiliation to any specific critical
agenda among those on offer (whether Marxist, 'Straussian',
communitarian, or any other); if such a stance is itself held to
involve an agenda of a kind, however labelled, the editors will not
mind. That certain methodological assumptions are in play is not in
doubt: see e.g. the following note. Implied here will be some
version of the 'contextualist' thesis associated particularly with
Quentin Skinner, which claims - among other things - that the
understanding of texts 'presupposes the grasp both of what they
were intended to mean, and how this meaning was intended to be
taken' (Skinner 1969: 48). No one will deny the particular
difficulty of establishing the intentions (in Skinner's sense) of
ancient authors or texts; but most will accept both the propriety
and the necessity of the task. Cambridge Histories Online Cambridge
University Press, 2008
24. 4 INTRODUCTION the widest sense. It must be acknowledged,
however, that once Plato (and Socrates) and Aristotle have made
their appearance in the volume, it is political theory which is
privileged over other sorts of political thinking. Plato and
Aristotle themselves receive a treatment which is necessarily6 both
broader and deeper than that accorded to any other thinker; and
much of the 'Hellenistic and Roman' section follows the fate of
Platonic and/or Aristotelian ideas7 in later thinkers, who are
either philosophers, or writers drawing on philosophical sources.
It is here, as it were, that the main action is taken to be
situated. A consequence, however, given the limits on available
space, is that other authors (i.e., broadly, those writing in
non-theoretical mode) in the later periods are handled rather more
selectively than in the earlier. In this sense, the volume may
appear somewhat lopsided (why, for example, should the Roman poets
be less deserving of mention than the Greek?), but - in the view of
the editors - not disturbingly so. Differences of approach between
contributors, of the sort described, inevitably lead to variations
in the degree of historical information supplied by individual
essays. However, suitable use of the index and bibliographies
provided at the end of the volume should be sufficient for the
basic repair of gaps in any reader's knowledge of the periods
covered. This History is not intended in any case as an
encyclopaedia or dictionary. The contributors are all actively
working in the areas on which they have written. Their brief was to
address their particular topic or theme in a way appropriate for
any intelligent reader, reflecting what seemed to them the best
available scholarship, while at the same time offering new thoughts
and suggesting future lines of investigation. Where there is
controversy, this is marked, at least by means of references to
rival views; the aim is to advance discussion, not to close it off.
The bibliography includes those items which contributors regard as
essential for anyone wishing to pursue an individual topic in
greater detail. Probably the most important subject of discussion
at the preliminary meeting of contributors, and subsequently, was
the meaning of 'the political'. Just what is to count as
'political' thought? In Greece down to the Hellenistic period, the
answer to the question is simple enough: 'the political' covers any
and every aspect of the polis, the 'city-state', or the
'citizen-state', as the fundamental unit into which society is
organized.8 When we apply the term 'political' here, it functions
essentially as the 6 8 Necessarily, that is, because of the extent,
complexity and importance (both historical and 7 philosophical) of
their political writing. See below. To give any precise date in
Greek history for the emergence of the polis as a distinct form of
organization is probably in principle impossible, but its origins
surely lie in the Archaic period. Cf. Raaflaub in Ch. 2 below.
Cambridge Histories Online Cambridge University Press, 2008
25. INTRODUCTION 5 equivalent of the Greek politikos
('appertaining to the polis'); when Plato talks ofpolitike
ifechne), 'the art/science of polities', he has in mind a body of
expertise that at least includes9 something resembling our
'political theory', except that the theory in this case is
restricted to the polis. That other forms of 'political'
organization exist is recognized, but they are not treated as
viable alternatives. This way of thinking is encapsulated in
Aristotle's formula, according to which human beings are by nature
'political animals', i.e. creatures designed - as it were - for
life in a polis. But in that case 'things political' (ta politika)
will not only include, but actually turn on, the central ethical
question about the best life for human beings, insofar as that life
must not only be lived in the polis, but will be shaped by it. How
is the community, and how are individuals who constitute that
community, to live justly and happily, and in general to achieve
their proper goals? Ethics is thus a part of'polities', the whole
being conceived of as 'the philosophy of things human' (Aristotle,
Nicomachean Ethics n8ibi5). Given all of this, the decline of the
polis from the later fourth century BC onwards, together with the
rise of the Hellenistic monarchies, might have been expected to
lead to a sea-change in the conception and function of political
theory; and just such a change might be seen as signalled by the
apparent reversal of the Aristotelian perspective by the
Hellenistic schools, for whom politics was a part of ethical
philosophy. On the other hand, from a wider perspective, this is no
more than a minor, and essentially technical, shift of emphasis.10
In the Greco-Roman period as a whole, political and ethical
philosophy are for the most part irrevocably intertwined, and
differences in the size and nature of the units into which society
happens to be, or might be, organized simply add to the complexity
of the demands on the study of political theory. 'Classical',
Platonic and Aristotelian, politiks and its Hellenistic counterpart
now turn out to be no more than (partly) different applications of
the same type of reflective activity, and the difference between
the latter and the former no more than 'an enlargement of the pool
of concepts in which political thinking can be done'. 11 There
will, then, clearly be ways in which, to a greater or lesser
degree, the conception of 'the political' reflected in large parts
of this volume is likely to seem, and actually is, foreign. The
modern conception refers to the institutional (and economic)
management of society without restriction to any particular form of
communal organization, 9 11 The qualification is necessary because,
for Plato, the expertise is to be acquired primarily to be 10
exercised. For a slightly different, but overlapping, analysis see
Griffin 1996. Griffin 1996:282. Cambridge Histories Online
Cambridge University Press, 2008
26. 6 INTRODUCTION and tends to banish ethical concerns to the
sphere of the private.12 The overlap, however, between this and the
ancient notion or notions is so great that, so long as the
differences are borne in mind, it is possible to move between them
with little sense of strain; and indeed if it were not, the very
project of a history of Greek and Roman 'political thought' would
make little sense. It might be claimed, in fact, that the tight
ancient connection between politics and ethics is itself largely
the invention of the philosophers. Insofar as we can construct an
ancient Greek, or Roman, notion of the political independently of
philosophical theorizing, 13 it seems to have rather little to do
with what we should call the moral aspects of the citizens' life
that so preoccupy a Plato, an Aristotle, or a Cicero, and much more
to do with what are to us more recognizably political issues such
as equality, autonomy, the distribution of power, and the
obligations of the citizen as citizen. Thus when Plato claims, in
the Gorgias, that Socrates someone who on Plato's account took no
part in practical politics - was in fact the only true politikos
('politician' or 'statesman'), because he was the only person who
did what a statesman should (tell the straight truth on ethical
questions), that would have been as paradoxical14 to a contemporary
Athenian as to us, and for similar if not quite identical reasons.
For us, Plato's Socrates is simply non-political, to the extent
that he eschews political institutions to achieve his ends; to the
Athenians, not only could he not be a politician (who is someone
who speaks in the assembly), but he might even be thought to be
failing in his role as citizen or polites, just by virtue of his
preferring not to participate in the institution of communal
debate. The distance between theory and practical reality
illustrated by this (extreme) example may lessen in succeeding
centuries, but never disappears; it is itself one of the most
striking features of Greco-Roman political thinking. 13 12 13 14 15
For the contrast with modern notions of politics and the political,
and for a more detailed and subtle account of ancient ones, see
Cartledge in Ch. 1 below. That is, by way of reference to what
politicians, or historians, would refer to as 'public affairs': ta
politika in Thucydides' sense, or res civiles in Tacitus'. It is,
of course, intended as a paradox; the underlying claim is that
politikoi should use their power to do what Socrates tries to do
(change people's attitudes and behaviour) by non-institutional
means. Cf. the exchange between Julian and Themistius, discussed in
section l of the 'Epilogue' below. The issues there partly relate
to the choice between the philosophical and the political life:
Socrates' commitment to practice, Julian insists, had nothing to do
with politics, and everything to do with philosophy. It is
philosophy, and philosophers, that have the power to transform us;
by comparison the benefits conferred by those who wield political
power pale into insignificance. Socrates would have applauded the
general sentiment. But as Julian recognizes, and must (since he has
just entered a position of power second only to that of emperor),
the practical problems of day-to-day politics will not simply go
away. Cambridge Histories Online Cambridge University Press,
2008
27. PART I ARCHAIC AND CLASSICAL GREECE Cambridge Histories
Online Cambridge University Press, 2008
28. Cambridge Histories Online Cambridge University Press,
2008
29. BLACK Mt Orb el us PAROHEIA Aft 5 > Jf ) O m ^ 2 Pi * _
Beroea. ^ , / ^P^^ Galepsus ThasosJ / J Thasos Samothrace^ Imbros^
Propontis fx^Doriscus I Aenus C. Sarpedon I jo^*i""oTorone M e n t
f e N i "T^Te ^Lampsacus Sestuso/^ " Abydus Cjzicus Sigeumo^ Piss
Gonfius oSJi Larissa o ^ X V ^ ^ Maronea (Abdetf C'^Tonw, " > ?"
V. Tempi Pass Byzantium o ) it J ) * Neapblis^^J^ Vion Wytrtf /
SpartoJ^s cHALcioictAcanthus ^PMriPass^Pyd.na P o t i d a e a t f N
^ M t A t l w s Pats , Corcyra^ K Rhodope/ / Crenides o Dcabescus
SEA Lemnos & Mtldd Colonaep Antandrus o ^oAdram^ttium THESSALY^
r ( U> A m b r a c i a 1 Anactorium Pharsalus Sciathos /Pherae'
Q Phocaea"; v Euboea ^ A r g o ^ >AChalcis / Sardis ChiosN
Astacus Cephallenia A O I (vMytHbne Lesbos ^ in j ^C. Artemisium g
^ H e s t i a e a (Oreus) BS3S Leucas / i."*V ^ Peparethos /
fCorinthian-.^ _ZI ZacynthosV^ ELIS L < J /" r T h e W ^ 3
-0-Ml- Megara S i c y o n o ^ ^ w t n M ^ g - - ) Athe Corinth o ^
- ^ ^ g j S - ? Cencnreae'^ Saronic _ PELOPONNESE ^^vOlympiai >
^, ^aArgos ^JJaphaneus ? B ^ W r e o s > Z' O M - Geiaestus
fiCoresta ~l Anriros Samos^ ^Priehe Tenos / * ^Aegina Ephesus
-.Myconos L Miletus^Teichiussa * CythnosO Seriphos^J Paros/' ^Naxos
CARIA Siphnos PhasetisS Melos Land over 1,000 metres 0 50 I 100 1
50 1 0 B ^Thera C. Taenarum SCALE al 1 150 S 200km e Chelidonian
Is. I Cythera ^ Rhodes 1 lOOmiles E Map l. Greece in
thefifthcentury BC. Cambridge Histories Online Cambridge University
Press, 2008
30. Cambridge Histories Online Cambridge University Press,
2008
31. Greek political thought: the historical context PAUL
CARTLEDGE i Terminology Much of our political terminology is Greek
in etymology: aristocracy, democracy, monarchy, oligarchy,
plutocracy, tyranny, to take just the most obvious examples,
besides politics itself and its derivatives. Most of the remainder
- citizen, constitution, dictatorship, people, republic and state -
have an alternative ancient derivation, from the Latin. It is the
ancient Greeks, though, who more typically function as 'our'
ancestors in the political sphere, ideologically, mythologically
and symbolically. It is they, above all, who are soberly credited
with having 'discovered' or 'invented' not only city-republican
forms but also politics in the strong sense: that is, communal
decision-making effected in public after substantive discussion by
or before voters deemed relevantly equal, and on issues of
principle as well as purely technical, operational matters. 1 Yet
whether it was in fact the Greeks - rather than the Phoenicians,
say, or Etruscans2 - who first discovered or invented politics in
this sense, it is unarguable that their politics and ours differ
sharply from each other, both theoretically and practically. This
is partly, but not only nor primarily, because they mainly operated
within the framework of the polis, with a radically different
conception of the nature of the citizen, and on a very much smaller
and more intimately personal scale (the average polis of the
Classical period is thought to have numbered no more than 500 to
2,000 adult male citizens; fifth-century Athens5 figure of 40,000
or more was hugely exceptional).3 The chief source of difference,
however, is that for both practical and theoretical reasons they
enriched or supplemented politics with practical ethics (as we
might put it). For the Greeks, moreover, the 'civic space' of the
political was located 1 3 Meier 1980(1990), Finley ig83,Farrar
1988;cf. Ampolo 1981. For Rome see Part II, especially i Ch. 20.
Raaflaub 1993; see also Ch. 2 below. Nixon and Price 1990. Gawantka
1985, an attempt to dismiss the polis as largely a
nineteenthcentury invention, has not found critical favour. A
variety of perspectives: Hansen 1993b. Cambridge Histories Online
Cambridge University Press, 2008
32. 12 GREEK POLITICAL THOUGHT: THE HISTORICAL CONTEXT
centrally. Public affairs were placed es meson or en mesoi
('towards' or 'in the middle5), both literally and metaphorically
at the heart of the community, as a prize to be contested. The
community in turn was construed concretely as a strongly inclusive
political corporation of actively participating and competing
citizens.4 By comparison, or contrast, the 'politics' studied by
modern western political theory, to say nothing of modern political
science, is an utterly different animal. It is characteristically
seen as a merely instrumental affair, to be evaluated in terms of
more fundamental ideas and values. Popular usage often reduces it
to amoral manipulation of power, or confines it to the force
exercised on a national scale by agencies of the state. 5 2
The'political' The point of opening with this comparison and
contrast is to emphasize the gulf between ancient Greek and modern
(western) politics and political thought. Scholars differ
considerably, though, over how precisely to identify 'the
political' in ancient Greece, a difference of opinion that is
itself political. One school of thought holds to the formalist,
almost Platonic view, that it should be defined strictly as the
non-utilitarian.6 Others, more realistically and accurately, deny
any absolute separation of politics and economics and see the
relationship between them rather in terms of primacy or priority.
For the Greeks, to paraphrase and invert Brecht's dictum, politics
(including die Moral) came first; then and only then came the
'guzzling' {das Fresseri).7 Further enlightenment on the particular
nature of the political in Greece may be derived from considering
the semantics of the public/private distinction. First, compare, or
rather contrast, Greece and Rome. The Romans set the respublica,
literally 'the People's matter' hence the republic, in opposition
to resprivata. However, the Greek equivalent of respublica was not
to demosion (the sphere of the Demos, the People's or public
sphere), but ta pragmata, literally 'things' or 'deeds' hence
(public or common) 'affairs', 'business'. It was for control
oftapragmata that revolutionaries in ancient 4 5 6 7 Vernant 1985:
238-60;cf. Leveque and Vidal-Naquet 1964(1983): 13-24, Nenci 1979.
Ancient politico-moral philosophy: Loizou and Lesser 1990, Euben,
Wallach and Ober 1994, Gill 1995: esp. ch. 4. Modern political
philosophy/science: Waldron 1989, Goodin and Pettit 1993. However,
Richter 1980 and Held 1991 are premised on wider and more apt
conceptions; see also Dunn 1992,1993,1996. Political culture: Pye
1993. Arendt 1958, Meier 1980/1990. Rahe 1992, Schmitt-Pantel 1990;
cf. Heller 1991. Note also Springborg 1990, a critique of Rahe.
Cambridge Histories Online Cambridge University Press, 2008
33. THE 'POLITICAL' 13 Greece struggled, and the Greek
equivalent of 'revolution' was neotera pragmata, literally 'newer
affairs'.8 Moreover, for the antithesis oftoidion (their equivalent
of res private, but susceptible also of a pejorative construal),
the Greeks as readily used to koinon ('the commonwealth') as to
demosion.9 In short, the private/public distinction occupied
overlapping but markedly different semantic spaces in Greece and
Rome. The Romans' construction of the distinction was closer to
ours, but in Greece there could be no straightforward opposition of
the public = the political to the private = the personal or
domestic.10 Hence, whereas for us 'The personal is the political'
is a counter-cultural, radical, even revolutionary slogan, for the
Greeks it would have been just a banal statement of the obvious,
for two main reasons. First, lacking the State (in a sense to be
specified in the next section), they lacked also our notions of
bureaucratic impersonality and facelessness, and therefore required
individual citizens to place their persons on the line both
officially and unofficially in the cause of the public good.
Secondly, society, not the individual, was for them the primary
point of political reference, and individualism did not constitute
a serious, let alone a normal, alternative pole of attraction. In
fact, there was no ancient Greek word for 'individual' in our
anti-social, indeed antipolitical, sense.x 1 Gender introduces a
further dimension of comparison and contrast. 12 In no Greek city
were women of the citizen estate - that is, the mothers, wives and
daughters of (adult male) citizens - accorded full public political
status equal to that of the citizens themselves, and the societies
of Classical Greece were both largely sex-segregated and
fundamentally gendered. War, for example, one of the most basic
Greek political activities, was considered a uniquely masculine
prerogative, and the peculiar virtue of pugnacious courage that it
was deemed to require was tellingly labelled andreia, 'manliness'
(the Greek equivalent of Roman virtus).13 From a mainly economic
and cultural point of view, the private domain of the oikos
(household) might perhaps be represented as more a feminine than a
masculine space, and understood as opposed to the polis, rather
than simply its basic component. Yet for most important political
purposes oikos 8 9 10 11 12 13 Vernant, 'The class struggle' (1965)
in Vernant 1980: 1-18; Godelier, 'Politics as a relation of
production. Dialogue with Edouard Will' in Godelier 1986:208-24.
These and other Greek/Roman contrasts: Steinmetz 1969, Nicolet
1975, Miiller 1987. Humphreys 1993c, Sourvinou-Inwood 1995.
Strasburger 1954 (1976). The semantic passage from Greek ididtls, a
citizen viewed in an unofficial capacity, to English 'idiot' begins
with the Greeks' privileging of the public space: Rubinstein 1998.
See further however Goldhill in Ch. 3, pp. 13-16. Comparatively:
Scott 1986, i99i;cf. Okin 1991. War: Havelock 1972.. Andreia:
Cartledge 1993a: 70-1. Cambridge Histories Online Cambridge
University Press, 2008
34. 14 GREEK POLITICAL THOUGHT: THE HISTORICAL CONTEXT and
polis are better viewed as inextricably interwoven and
complementary. 14 Two illustrations must suffice. Firstly, the
Greek city's ability to flourish depended crucially on mortals
maintaining the right relationships with the divine, and that was
thought to require the public religious participation of women,
even as high priests, no less than of the male citizens; the
religious calendar of all Greek cities included the festival of the
Thesmophoria in honour of Demeter, and that was strictly
women-only.15 Secondly, marriage was in itself a purely private
arrangement between two oikoi, or rather their male heads, and its
rituals and ceremonies, however publicly visible, were legally
speaking quite unofficial. Yet on the issue of marriages between
citizen households depended the propagation and continuity of the
citizen estate. So the law stepped in to prescribe and help police
the boundaries of legitimacy of both offspring and inheritance. The
Periclean citizenship law of 451/0 in democratic Athens, reimposed
in 403 and vigorously enforced thereafter, is but the best-known
example of this general Greek rule. Among other consequences, it
effectively outlawed the interstate marriages that had been a
traditional strategy for elite Athenians.16 Both the above
illustrations of the essential political interconnectedness of
polis and oikos involve religion. Here is a further major
difference between ancient and modern (western) politics. The Greek
city was a city of gods as well as a city of humankind; to an
ancient Greek, as Thales is said to have remarked, everything was
'full of gods3.17 Greek religion, moreover, like Roman, was a
system ideologically committed to the public, not the private,
sphere. 18 Spatially, the civic agora, the human 'place of
gathering', and the akropolis, the 'high city' where the gods
typically had their abode, were the twin, symbiotic nodes of
ancient Greek political networking. Nicole Loraux's study ofAthens'
patron goddess Athena and the Athenian acropolis in the context of
the Athenian 'civic imaginary' is thus an exemplary demonstration
of the necessary imbrication of religion and the political in an
ancient Greek polis.19 The polis, however, was no theocracy.
Worshipping the gods was for the Greeks nomizein tous theous,
recognizing them duly by thought, word and deed in fulfilment
ofnomos - convention, custom and practice. Yet it was men who chose
which gods to worship, and where, when and 14 16 17 18 15 Humphreys
1993b;cf. Musti 1985,Swanson 1992. Bruit 1992. Harrison 1968, Just
1989, Bruit and Schmitt Pantel 1992:67-71, Oakley and Sinos 1993.
Bruit and Schmitt Pantel 1992. 19 Fustel deCoulanges i864,Burkert
i985;cf. Beard 1994:732. Loraux 1984(1993). Cambridge Histories
Online Cambridge University Press, 2008
35. THE 'POLITICAL' 15 how, availing themselves of the
fantastic variety of options on offer under a system of almost
limitless polytheism; and they did so without benefit of clergy,
dogma or sacred scripture. In its other main sense, which
corroborates the significantly man-made character of Greek
religious belief and practice, nomos meant law, as exemplified by
the positive Athenian law against impiety of which Socrates fell
foul for 'not duly recognizing the gods which the city
recognizes3.20 In all the explicit Greek political thought or
theory we possess, and in a good deal of other informal political
literature besides, the rule of the nomoi or of plain Nomos in the
abstract was a given within the framework of the polis. After
positive laws began to be written down in imperishable or lasting
media (stone, bronze) in the seventh century BC, a distinction came
to be drawn between the unchangeable and universal 'unwritten' laws
- chiefly religious in import, and all the more binding for not
being written down - and the laws that were 'written', that is,
locally variable and open to alteration. Yet although it was men or
rather citizens who made the positive, written laws, they too were
in principle considered somehow above and beyond the reach of their
quotidian interpreters. 21 The etymological root of nomos would
seem to be a verb meaning 'to distribute'. What was on offer for
distribution within the civic space of the polis was time, status,
prestige or honour, both abstractly in the form of the entitlement
and encouragement to participate, and concretely in the form of
political offices (timai). Differing social backgrounds and
experiences, and different innate abilities, meant that in practice
time and timai were of course distributed among the citizens
unequally - almost by definition so under a regime of aristocracy
or oligarchy. But even in formally as well as substantively
inegalitarian regimes there is perceptible an underlying, almost
subconscious assumption of equality in some, not in every, respect.
The polis in this sense may fairly be described as an inherently
egalitarian political community. By 500 BC this broadly egalitarian
ideal had engendered the concept of isonomia: an exactly,
mathematically equal distribution of time for those deemed
relevantly equal (isoi), a precise equality of treatment for all
citizens under the current positive laws (nomoi). The earliest
known appearance of the term is in an elite social context, whereas
its characteristic appropriation after 500 was democratic. 20 21
Socrates' trial in religio-political context: Garland 1991:136-51,
Vlastos 1994. Nomos: Ostwald 1969. A polis's nomoi might bc
ascribed en bloc to the initiative of one superwise 'lawgiver'
(nomothetls), appeal to whose supposed intentions could serve as a
conservative force: Holkeskamp 1991b [i995];cf. Ch. 2 below.
Cambridge Histories Online Cambridge University Press, 2008
36. l6 GREEK POLITICAL THOUGHT: THE HISTORICAL CONTEXT This is
a measure of the essentially contested nature of the concept of
equality in the polis, a feature by no means peculiar to ancient
Greece, but given extra force by the Greeks' agonistic mentality
and competitive social and political systems.22 Scarcely less
fundamental to the Greeks' idea of the political than gender,
household, religion and nomos was the value of freedom. Freedom and
equality, indeed, were the prime political sentiments or slogans of
the ancient Greeks, as they are our own. 23 But ancient Greek
political freedom was arguably a value of a very different kind,
embedded as it was in societies whose political, social and
economic arrangements were irreducibly alien to modern western
ones. 24 Aristotle, for example, advocated a strong form of
political freedom for citizens, but simultaneously made a doctrine
of natural slavery central to his entire sociopolitical project of
description, analysis and amelioration. Although the doctrine may
have been peculiarly Aristotelian in crucial respects, a wide range
of texts, literary, historical and medical as well as
philosophical, makes it perfectly clear that the Greeks' very
notion of freedom depended essentially on the antinomy of slavery.
For a Greek, being free meant precisely not being, and not behaving
in the allegedly typical manner of, a slave. It was probably the
accessibility and availability of oriental 'barbarians', living
under what the Greeks could easily construe as despotic,
anti-political regimes, that most decisively influenced the
particular ethnocentric construction and emphasis they placed on
their own essentially politicized liberty.25 The peculiarity of
Greek liberty may also be grasped comparatively, through following
the lead given by Benjamin Constant, a pioneer liberal thinker and
activist, in a famous speech ('The Liberty of the Ancients compared
with that of the Moderns', 1819). If the Greeks did indeed
'discover' liberty, the liberty they discovered was for Constant a
peculiarly ancient form - political and civic, public, subjecting
the individual completely to the authority of the community, and
anyhow available only for male full citizens. The liberty of the
moderns, Constant insisted, was incommensurably different. It was
social rather than political, for women as well as men, and
involved private rights (including those of free speech, choice of
occupation, and property-disposal) more importantly than public
duties. In short, it was little more than freedom from politics as
the Greeks understood it.26 22 24 26 Equality, ancient: Cartledge
1996a; cf. Vlastos, below, n. 35. Equality, modern: Beitz 1991-
Con23 test-system: below, n. 39. Raaflaub
1983,1985,1990-1,Patterson 1991, Davis 1995. 2S Garlan 1988; cf.
Patterson 1981. Cartledge 1993a: 118-51,1993b. Constant 1819
(1988); cf. Thorn 1995:89-118. Cambridge Histories Online Cambridge
University Press, 2008
37. THE POLIS 17 3 Thepolis The typical ancient polis was a
republic, not a monarchy, nor afortiori an extra- or
anti-constitutional tyranny or dictatorship. Republicanism almost
definitionally aims to promote what it is pleased to call the
public good, but that can mean very different things and may be
promoted in very different ways. 27 For example, the paradoxical
claim that today 'Most governments try to suppress politics ' 2 8
exemplifies a peculiarly modern phenomenon, equally applicable to
all modern varieties of republican states. An ancient Greek
republican would have been puzzled or appalled by this seeming
contradiction between theory and practice. The short explanation of
this disjunction is that modern governments are part and parcel of
the State (capital S), whereas the polis may for all important
purposes be classified as a more or less fully stateless political
community.29 The differences between the politics (including
political culture no less than formal political institutions) of
the polis and that of modern Statebased and State-centred polities
may be considered in both positive and negative terms. Positively,
and substantively, the chief difference is the direct, unmediated,
participatory character of political action in Greece. The citizens
were the polis; and there was no distinction or opposition between
'Us', the ordinary citizens, and 'Them', the government or official
bureaucracy. Indeed, for Aristotle - whose preferred, actively
participatory definition of the citizen was (as he confessed) more
aptly suited to the citizen of a democracy than of an oligarchy -
the essential difference between the polis and pre-polis or
non-polis societies was that the polis was a strong community of
adult male citizens with defined honours and obligations.
Correspondingly, the category of those who were counted as
citizens, and thereby entitled so to participate, was restricted
narrowly to free adult males of a certain defined parentage. Their
wives and other female relatives were, at best, second-class
citizens. Resident foreigners, even if Greek, might qualify at most
for inferior metic status. The unfree were by definition deprived
of all political and almost all social honour. 30 Negatively, the
(relative) statelessness of the polis reveals itself by a series of
absences striking by comparison with the condition of the 27 19 30
2S Nippel 1994; cf. 1988, Rahe 1991. Crick 1992:168. 'State',
comparatively: Hall 1986, Skinner 1989. Greek polis as 'sateless':
esp. Berent 1994; but not 'acephalous': Rhodes 1995. Ehrenberg 1969
did not address the issue. Aristotle's citizen: Pol.
I274t>3i-i278b5,esp. 1275^9-20; cf. Cartledge 1993a: 107-11;
further section 4, below. Cambridge Histories Online Cambridge
University Press, 2008
38. l8 GREEK POLITICAL THOUGHT: THE HISTORICAL CONTEXT modern,
especially the modern liberal, state-community. There was in Greece
no Hegelian civil society distinct from a government and its
agents; and no formally instituted separation of powers: whoever
ruled in a Greek polis (whether one, some or all) did so
legislatively and judicially as well as executively.31 Sovereignty,
on the other hand, despite modern legalistic attempts to identify a
notion of the 'sovereignty' of Law (or the laws) that would supply
the motive force for civil obedience, remained blurred, in so far
indeed as it was an issue.32 There were no political parties in the
modern sense, and so no concept of a loyal opposition, no
legitimacy of opposition for its own sake. There was no properly
constituted police force to maintain public order, or at most a
very limited one, as in the case of the publicly owned Scythian
slave archers at Athens. Self- help was therefore a necessity, not
merely desirable.33 There was no concept of official public
toleration of civil dissent and so (as the trial of Socrates most
famously illustrates) no conscientious objectors to appeal to such
a concept. Finally, there were no individual, natural rights to
life and liberty (as in the French eighteenth-century Rights of Man
and Citizen), not even as a metaphor, let alone in the sense of
legally entrenched prerogatives (as in the United States Bill of
Rights). 34 At most, there might exist an implied assumption of or
implicit claim to political entitlement, as in the concept
ofisonomia or equality of status and privilege under the
citizenmade laws. 35 None of these differences between republics
ancient and modern was purely a function of unavoidable material or
technological factors. Rather, that Greek political theory laid
such conspicuous stress on the imperative of self-control was a
matter largely of ethical choice. Provided that citizens could
control themselves, they were enabled and entitled to rule others
(their own wives and children and other disfranchised residents, no
less than outsiders in a physical sense). Failure of self-control,
on the other hand, would lead to transgression of the communally
defined limits of appropriate behaviour, a deviation that when
accompanied by violence was informally castigated and formally
punished as hubris - the ultimate civic crime. 36 It was from the
statelessness of the Greek polis, too, that there stemmed in
important measure the material prevalence of and theoretical 31
Rule/participation: Ederi99i. Hansen 1983 offers an alleged but
unpersuasive exception. OstwaIdi986. Legitimacy: Finley 1982; cf.
Maclntyre 1973-4. Policing: Hunter 1994; cf. Nippel 1995. Selfhelp:
Lintott 1982:15-17,21-4,26-8, Finley 1983:107 and n. 9. 34 Ostwald
1969:113 n. 1; cited by Raaflaub 1983: 539 n. 24. See also
Schofield 1995-6. 35 36 Vlastos 1953,1964. Fisher 1992;cf. 1990. 32
33 Cambridge Histories Online Cambridge University Press, 2008
39. THE POLIS 19 preoccupation with the phenomenon known as
stasis: civil discord, or outright civil war. 37 Stasis had several
other contributory sources and causes. A major one was the
contradiction between the notional egalitarianism of the citizen
estate, expressed by the term isonomia, and the existence of
exceptionally charismatic individuals denied (so they believed)
their due portion of status and honour (time).38 Politics in the
sense of political infighting was typically construed by the Greeks
as a zero-sum game of agonistic competition with as its goal the
maximization of personal honour. Democratic Athens was quite
exceptional in successfully suppressing, or channelling in socially
fruitful directions, the public struggle among the elite for
political honour over an extended period.39 A second and yet more
major cause of stasis, economic stratification, operated at the
deeper level of social structure. The poor were always with the
Greeks, whose normative definition of poverty was noticeably broad.
Everyone was deemed to be 'poor', except the seriously rich at one
end of the scale and the destitute at the other. The criterion of
distinction between the rich and the rest was leisure: what counted
was whether or not one was obliged to work at all for one's living.
Characteristically, the relationship of rich to poor citizens was
conceived, by thinkers and activists alike, as one of permanent
antagonism, prone to assume an actively political form as 'class
struggle on the political plane'.40 Logically, however, stasis was
but the most extreme expression of the division that potentially
threatened any Greek citizen body when it came together to make
decisions competitively es meson. Here indeed lay the paradox of
stasis, a phenomenon both execrable and yet, given the framework of
the Greek city, somehow inevitable and even supportable. 41 It was
because of this inherent danger of the division of a split vote
turning into the division of civil war that the governing political
ideal on both main sides of the political divide was always
homonoia: not merely consensus, or passive acquiescence in the will
or power of the minority or majority, but literally
'same-mindedness', absolute unanimity among the publicly active and
politically decisive citizenry. Alternatively, and more
theoretically, if not wishfully, Greek political thinkers from at
least Thucydides (vm.97.2) onwards proclaimed the 37 38 39 41
Lintott 1982, Fuks 1984, Gehrke 1985, Berger 1992, Molyneux 1993.
Isonomia: above, n. 35. Charismatic individuals: Finley 'Leaders
and followers', in Finley 1985: 3-37Zero-sum game: Gouldner 1965;
cf. Cartledge 1990. Honour as political goal: Arist. EN
10951319-31; cf. Ste. Croix 1981:8o, 531 n.30. Athens as exception:
Cartledge, Millett and von 40 Reden 1998. Ste. Croix 1981:278-326;
cf. 69-80. Also Fuks 1984, Ober 1989. Loraux 1987,1991. Cambridge
Histories Online Cambridge University Press, 2008
40. 2O GREEK POLITICAL THOUGHT: THE HISTORICAL CONTEXT merits
of a 'mixed' constitution, one that would ideally offer something
substantial to all the contending groups and personalities.42 If,
however, homonoia and the mixed constitution proved unachievable,
the Greek citizen was expected, and might even be legally required,
to fight it out literally to the death with his fellow-citizens.43
The contradiction between ancient Greek and early modern (and
subsequent) western political thinking on the question of faction
is revealingly sharp. From Hobbes to Madison, faction was construed
wholly negatively, in line with the general early modern abhorrence
of direct popular participation in politics, as a horrible antique
bogey to be exorcized utterly from modern, 'progressive' political
life. During the nineteenth century, with the rise of an organized
working class to political prominence in the industrialized
countries, that hostile tradition could not but be honed and
polished - or rebutted in the name of revolutionary politics of
different sorts. Conversely, the peculiarly modern ideals of
pluralism and liberalism, usually represented now under the guise
of liberal democracy but increasingly challenged by varieties of
communitarianism, presuppose or require the existence of the
strong, centralizing and structurally differentiated state. 44 4
Political theory The modern political theorist would surely find it
odd that the discussion of strictly constitutional questions has
been so long delayed. But Greek political theory was never in any
case solely about constitutional power. The ancient Greek word that
we translate constitution, politeia, was used to mean citizenship
as well; and it had besides a wider, moral frame of reference than
either our 'citizenship' or 'constitution'. Conversely, not some
abstraction but men - citizen men - were the polis. Politeia thus
came to denote both actively participatory citizenship, not just
the passive possession of the formal 'rights' of a citizen, and the
polis's very life and soul (both metaphors were applied in
antiquity). 45 Congruently, whereas modern political theory
characteristically employs the imagery of machinery or
building-construction, ancient political theory typically thought
in organic terms, preferring to speak of sharing (methexis) and
rule (arche) rather than sovereignty or power (bia, kratos,
ananke).46 42 43 44 46 Von Fritz 1954, Nippel 1980,1994-
Post-ancient idealization: cf. Blythe 1992. Raaflaub 1992:41 and n.
99. Rawls 1992. This is just one of the reasons why Havelock 1957
is misguided: Brunt 1993: 4S 389-94; so too Hansen 1989. Politeia:
Bordes 1982. Meier 1980 (1990); cf., comparatively, Nippel 1993.
Cambridge Histories Online Cambridge University Press, 2008
41. POLITICAL THEORY 21 All ancient Greek culture was
inherently performative and competitive, and Greek intellectuals
reflected the competitiveness of politics in both the manner and
the matter of their own internal disputes. 47 Although there is
still plenty of room for modern controversy over how long it took
for political theory proper to replace mere political thinking, the
discovery of constitutional political theory was made in Greece at
least a century before Aristotle sat as a pupil of Plato's Academy;
it is first unambiguously visible in Herodotus' 'Persian Debate'
(m.80-2). By then, some Greek or Greeks had had the stunningly
simple intuition that all constitutionally ordered polities must be
species subsumable in principle under one ofjust three genera: rule
by one, rule by some, or rule by all. This is a beautiful
hypothesis distinguished by its combination of scope and economy,
but moving qualitatively beyond the level of political debate
visible in Homer in terms of both abstraction and sophistication.
In Herodotus, too, we find already the germ of a more complex
classification of'rule', whereby each genus has both a 'good'
specification and its corresponding corrupt deviation. Thus rule by
one might be the legitimate, hereditary constitutional monarchy of
a wise pastor - or the illegitimate despotism of a wicked tyrant;
and likewise with the other two genera and their species.48 Of the
two great fourth-century political theorists, however, Plato seems
to have had little interest in the comparative sociological
taxonomy of political formations. That was a major preoccupation of
his pupil Aristotle's Politics, a study based on research into more
than 150 of the over 1,000 separate and jealously independent Greek
polities situated 'like frogs or ants round a pond' (Plato, Phaedo
109b) on the Black Sea and along much of the Mediterranean
coastline.49 In Aristotle's day, the third quarter of the fourth
century, democracy and oligarchy were the two most widespread forms
of constitution among the Greeks. 50 But before about 500 BC there
had been no democracy, anywhere (not only not in the Greek world);
and conceivably it was the invention of democracy at Athens that
gave the necessary context and impetus for the discovery of
political theory - as opposed to mere thinking about politics,
which can be traced back in extant Greek literature as far as the
second book of Homer's Iliad.51 Political theory of any sort,
properly so called, would have been impossible without politics in
the strong sense defined at the start of this 47 48 50 51 Lloyd
1987: ch. 2. 49 Among many treatments of the Debate, see e.g. Lloyd
1979:244-5. Huxley 1979. Pol. 1269322-3; Aristotle typically
claimed to have identified four species of each (oligarchy:
1292840-1292!); democracy: 12911531-1292839). Finley 1986:115,
Brock 1991; cf. Euben 1986, Raaflaub 1989. Cambridge Histories
Online Cambridge University Press, 2008
42. 22 GREEK POLITICAL THOUGHT: THE HISTORICAL CONTEXT chapter,
and there would have been no such politics without the polis. It is
generally agreed that this institution, not certainly unique to
Greece but certainly given a peculiarly Greek spin, emerged in the
course of the eighth century BC. Almost everyone would also accept
that there is an unbridgeable divide, politically, between the
world of the Bronze Age Mycenaean palace (c.1500-1100 BC) and the
world of the historic Greek polis. But there is no such general
agreement as to how and why, precisely, the polis emerged when and
where it did, although the principal causal variables were probably
land-ownership, warfare and religion.52 Contemporary sources for
this momentous development are mainly archaeological; the literary
sources are largely confined to the poetry of Homer and Hesiod.
Controversy over the use of Homer for political reconstruction has
centred on whether the epics presuppose, imply or at any rate
betray the existence of the polis.53 The significance of Hesiod's
testimony is rather that his is the first extended articulation of
the idea of the just city.54 It took rather longer for the Greek
polis to become also, ideally, a city of reason.55 One crucial step
was the dispersal of political power downwards, through the
tempering of the might of Hesiod's aristocrats by the empowerment
of a hoplite 'middle class', who could afford heavy infantry
equipment and had the necessary leisure to make profitable use of
it in defence both of their polis and of their own new status
within it. They were the backbone of the republican Greece that in
the Persian Wars triumphantly repulsed the threat of oriental
despotism, and the chief weapon with which radical political change
and its accompanying revolution in political theory could be
effected.56 A contemporary of those Wars, the praise-poet
Simonides, observed unselfconsciously and accurately that 'the
polis teaches a man' - how, that is, to be a citizen. 57 The
dominant tradition of ancient Greek political theory, as opposed to
mere political thinking or thought, that took its rise round about
the same time was dedicated to the proposition that the Simonidean
formula was a necessary but not a sufficient condition of political
virtue and excellence.58 52 Runciman 1982, Whitley 1991, Funke
1993. Scully 1990, e.g., is confident chat the polis exists in
Homer, whereas what seems to me most signally lacking is the
concept of citizenship and so of the 'citizen-state' (Runciman
1990). 54 5S Snodgrass 1980: ch. 3. Murray 1990a, 1991a. 56
Cartledge 1977 (1986): esp. 23-4, Hanson 1995. 57 Simonides ap.
Plu. An senisitgerenda res. 1 =eleg. 15, ed. D. A. Campbell (Greek
Lyric in, Loeb Classical Library, Cambridge, MA 1991). 58 I am
indebted to Giulio Einaudi editore s.p.a., and particularly Signor
Paolo Stefenelli, for graciously allowing me to draw upon the
English originals of my two chapters in the multi-volume work /
Gred (Turin), ed. S. Settis: Cartledge 1996a and 1996b. 53
Cambridge Histories Online Cambridge University Press, 2008
43. Poets, lawgivers, and the beginnings of political
reflection in Archaic Greece K U R T A. R A A F L A U B TTOAIC.
SvSpoc SiSdoKti 'The polis teaches a man' (SIMONIDES 90 (WEST)) i
Polis and political thinking A few statements, from Simonides back
to Homer, will illuminate the social and political setting that was
crucial for the development of Greek political thinking.1 Simonides
(556-468) declares: A man who is not evil 'nor too reckless
suffices for me, one who has a sound mind and knows the justice
that is useful to the polis' (542.33-6P). Xenophanes of Colophon
(570-475) polemicizes against the custom of honouring victorious
athletes at public expense; for the athlete's skill, unlike the
poet's good expertise (sophie), does not contribute to putting the
polis in good order {eunomiS) nor 'enrich the polis's treasury'
(2W). Phocylides of Miletus (sixth century) thinks, 'A small polis
on a high cliff that is well run is better than foolish Nineveh'
(4GP). Earlier in the sixth century, Theognis of Megara and Solon
of Athens, seeing the injustice committed by morally depraved
aristocrats, worry about impending social conflicts and tyranny:
Kyrnos, this polis is pregnant, and I fear that it will give birth
to a man who will be a straightener of our base hubris . . .
(Theognis 39-40, cf. 41-52, tr.Nagy) Our polis will never perish by
decree of Zeus or whim of the immortals... But by thoughtless
devotion to money, the citizens are willing to destroy our great
polis... (Solon 4.1-6W, tr. Mulroy) 1 All dates are BC, all
biographical dates approximate. Editions cited: DK: Diels and Kranz
1951-2; GP: Gentili and Prato 1988; KRS: Kirk, Raven and Schofield
1983; ML: Meiggs and Lewis 1988; P: Page 1962; W: West 1989/92.
Translations used (often modified): Athanassakis 1983, Fagles 1990,
Frankel 1973, Freeman 1948, Lattimore 1951, i960, 1965, Mulroy
1992, Nagy 1985. Due to space restrictions I refer, wherever
possible, to recent publications with good bibliographies. [23]
Cambridge Histories Online Cambridge University Press, 2008
44. 24 THE BEGINNINGS OF POLITICAL REFLECTION Like Xenophanes,
in mid seventh-century Sparta Tyrtaeus rejects commonly praised
individual qualities in favour of those that benefit the polis:
fierce courage in the thick of battle is mankind's finest
possession, that is the noblest prize that a young man can endeavor
to win, and it is a good thing his polis and all the people share
with him . . . (12.13-15 W,tr. Lattimore) Another half-century
earlier, Hesiod links individual justice and communal well-being:
Those who give straight verdicts and follow justice... live in a
polis that blossoms, a polis that prospers... [But] many times one
man's wickedness ruins a whole polis, if such a man breaks the law
and turns his mind to recklessness. (Works and Days 225-7,140-1,
tr. Athanassakis) In the Iliad (xn.243) Hector says simply, 'One
bird-omen is best, to fight defending the fatherland.'2 With
varying emphasis, all these testimonia, spanning three centuries
and many parts of Archaic Greece, illustrate the centrality of the
polis in the thoughts and concerns of Archaic poets. Briefly, the
polis was a community of persons or citizens, of place or
territory, of cults, customs and laws, and a community that,
whether independent or not, was able to administer itself (fully or
partly). Usually translated as 'city-state', it should properly be
labelled 'citizen-state'. In the Classical period the polis
normally had an urban centre. But ifwe use the term 'city' to
describe that centre, we should not conflate city with polis. The
city as urban centre presupposed the polis and was part of it, on
equal terms with the surrounding countryside. Although large parts
of the Greek world were organized not in poleis but 'tribal states'
(etkne), during the Archaic and Classical periods the polis was
politically and culturally the leading form of state. 3 Already the
'Homeric world' is a world of poleis.4 These communities, though
reflecting an early, far from fully developed and integrated form
of 2 3 4 That is, Troy, conceptualized as a polis: below at nn 4-6.
'Citizen-state': Runciman 1990: 348, Hansen 1993a. Polis: Ehrenberg
1969: 88-102, Finley 1982a: 3-23, Sakellariou 1989: pt 1, Hansen
1998; for the definition presented here, see Raaflaub 1993:43-4.
Ethnos: Snodgrass 1980:42-7, Morgan i99i,Funke 1993. For
hesitations about the applicability of the concept of'state' to the
polis, see Ch. 1 above. 'Homer' stands for the poet(s) who composed
the extant monumental epics, most probably in the second half of
the eighth century: Janko 1982: 188-200, 228-31, Kirk 1985: 1-4,
Latacz 1996: 56-9; contra (early seventh century): West 1995; see
also Raaflaub 1998:187-8 with more bibliography. Cambridge
Histories Online Cambridge University Press, 2008
45. POLIS AND POLITICAL THINKING 25 the polis, show all its
essential characteristics.5 In the poet's imagination the Trojan
War - despite its epic, Panhellenic and trans-Aegean dimensions -
resembles a war between two poleis on opposite sides of a large
plain. Throughout Greek history, such neighbourhood rivalries often
caused long and bitter wars; they are attested for the first time
precisely in Homer's time.6 More importantly, the poet consciously
conceptualizes the polis. Odysseus, approaching the land of the
Cyclopes, sets foot on an uninhabited island. A contemporary of the
first widespread Greek 'colonization', that is establishment of new
settlements throughout the Mediterranean world (section 7 below),
the poet notes the island's potential for a polis: it has fertile
land for crops and fruits, well-watered meadows, and an easy
harbour with a good spring (Odyssey ix. 131-41). The Cyclopes,
however, have not taken advantage of this opportunity. They live in
golden age abundance and 'all grows for them without seed planting,
without cultivation' (107-11, tr. Lattimore); they have no ships
and do not visit the cities of other people (125-9). Although
blessed by the gods, they are outrageous and lawless (106) and
despise the gods (273-8); they have no shared laws (themistes), no
meetings for counsels (boulephoroi agorai); rather they make their
habitations in caverns hollowed among the peaks of the high
mountains, and each one sets the law for his own wives and
children, and cares nothing about the others. (112-15) The Cyclops
society thus does not know the polis and its essential structures;
it consists of completely autonomous households (oikoi); in every
respect it is the extreme opposite of normal human society. In
stark contrast, the Phaeacians, who originally lived near the
Cyclopes but were harassed by them until they emigrated and founded
their new city on Scheria (Od. vi.4-10), represent an ideal polis:
they respect the gods, are hospitable and generous to strangers,
and have mastered the art of sailing beyond imagination.7 The
contrast is deliberate: there the self-centred monsters who lack a
community and violate every norm, here a people who do everything
right and fully share their communal experience. In the epics, the
polis represents civilization, communica5 Raaflaub 1991:239-47;
1993:46~59;cf. Morris 1987: ch. 10, Scully 1990, van Wees 1992: ch.
2. Contra: Finley 1977:33-4,155-6, Ehrenberg 1937:155 =
1965:93,Starr 1986:35-6,Cartledge in 6 Ch. 1 above. Raaflaub
1991:222-5,19973: 51-2. 7 Od. Bks. vi-viii,xiii.i-95;cf. Raaflaub
1993:48-9. Cambridge Histories Online Cambridge University Press,
2008
46. 26 THE BEGINNINGS OF POLITICAL REFLECTION tion, community
and justice; not to live in a polis means primitiveness, isolation,
lack of community and lawlessness.8 2 Archaic poetry and political
thinking Politics and the political sphere were not conceptualized
explicitly before the late fifth and fourth centuries; political
treatises and specialized political thinkers appeared only then.
Yet in an informal sense, as the preceding section has shown,
political reflection, focusing on the polis and relationships
within it, existed much earlier. In tracing such thinking, we
should consider not only specifically political ideas but a much
broader range of aspects. For in Greek self-perception, the polis
was more than a political unit. It was a social entity in a very
comprehensive sense: its wellbeing depended on many factors, not
only on political institutions or decisions. At first sight, the
nature of the extant sources seems to pose great difficulties to
using them as evidence for early political thinking. In particular,
because the Homeric epics stand in a long tradition of oral poetry,
scholars often dismiss the society they depict as an artificial
amalgam of many periods and traditions and of poetic imagination.9
Hesiod's didactic poems, focusing on the divine and private
spheres, appear apolitical, while 'lyric poetry' usually is
interpreted as individualistic and local. Why, then, should we
expect such poetry to offer reliable insight into the political
concerns and thoughts of the poets' contemporaries? Upon closer
inspection, things look differently. To oral epic, the interaction
between singer and audience was essential; fantasy and archaisms
were balanced by the listeners' need to identify with the human
drama and ethical dilemmas described by the singer. In each
performance, the poet combined heroically elevated actions by
extraordinary individuals with material reflecting social, economic
and political conditions, values and relationships that were
familiar to the audience. M.I. Finley and others have found a high
degree of consistency in numerous aspects of 'Homeric society'. For
various reasons, this society probably was nearcontemporary rather
than fully contemporary with the poet's own. Since epic poetry
enjoyed Panhellenic acceptance, it must have been widely attractive
and meaningful, despite local differences. The 'Homeric world' thus
should be assumed to reflect conditions, relationships and concerns
8 9 Scully 1981: 5-9. E.g., Long 1970, Snodgrass 1974, Kirk 1975:
820-50. Contra: Adkins 1971, Qviller 1981: esp. 114, Morris 1986:
esp. 102-20, and the bibliography in n. 10. Cambridge Histories
Online Cambridge University Press, 2008
47. HOMER 27 existing in wide parts of Hellas in roughly the
late ninth and eighth centuries. 10 Most post-Homeric poets seem
firmly anchored in one place, and present themselves as individuals
with a distinct personality and biography. For example, Hesiod, a
small farmer in a Boeotian village, was involved in an inheritance
struggle with his brother and suffered from unjust decisions by
corrupt aristocratic judges. Archilochus was a mercenary from Paros
who fought with the colonists of Abdera against Thracian natives,
enjoyed life, despised traditional values, and hated the
aristocracy. Although such biographical details, usually taken
literally, may be historically authentic, it is also possible that
they are elements of an artfully created persona attributed to the
(real or fictitious) 'founding hero' of a poetic genre by the
'guild' of singers performing in that genre. In this view, Hesiod
is the archetypal didactic poet performing in dactylic hexameters,
Archilochus that of iambic blame poetry. Content and meaning of
such poetry, in whatever genre, certainly transcend locality or
region, have the same Panhellenic appeal as heroic epic, and thus
must reflect con